4:25 P.M. U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking in Thailand, says he firmly supports Israel’s right to protect itself, but that it would be “preferable” to avoid a ground invasion in Gaza: “Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired onto its territory. If that can be accomplished without the ramping up of military activity in Gaza – that’s preferable. That’s not just preferable for the people of Gaza. It’s also preferable for Israelis, because if Israeli troops are in Gaza, they’re much more at risk of fatalities or being wounded. We’re going to have to see what kind of progress we can make in the next 24, 36, 48 hours”.

He might have meant diplomatic progress, but it’s pretty clear that Israel can do whatever the fuck they want and it’s “our” war.

I hate that Israel has a free rein to kill and maim as many Palestinians as its wants with our blessings. They are protected from world condemnation because US will be there to veto anything. I am heart sick over this, and feel responsible for it as an American. I wish the president would have the moral convection to warn that fucker Netanyahu.

Israelis are real people and more or less Americans and Palestinians are not real people and are lucky if we even talk about them as humans. Israeli civilians must be protected from threat by any amount of force to be deployed against Palestinian semi-humans, and Palestinians must understand that any amount of force may be deployed against them whether or not Israeli civilians are immediately at threat.

All Palestinian territories are military targets. Israeli civilians may not in fact be being made more safe by the Israeli policies supposedly being carried out for their protection, but we here are under full moral obligation to believe that this is the goal of Israeli military policies with regard to Palestinian territories.

If Israeli policymakers and their paramilitary settler wing say that their goals are the safety of Israeli civilians, we have no right to disagree, no matter how badly these strategies have served that purpose over the last few generations. If they say it, we have to believe it, and we have to help, arm, and fund them in doing so.

@ding dong:
I don’t think Obama really hates Israel. I think it’s more like he — how shall I put this? — doesn’t think highly of Bibi. Bibi is not just reacting in a disproportionate manner, he is also pursuing a strategy of derailing US relations with the Muslim world.

well, we are paying for Iron Dome, and paying for the missiles they fire into apartment blocks, and paying for the naval shells they fire into refugee camps, so yes, it is “our” war against the Palestinians.

Obama must use impeccably pro-Israel rhetoric at all times to avoid havIng many, many people in the US flipping their shit. The larger question is of whether he believes all of saId rhetorIc. I don’t know, myself. I have a feeling he’s fairly conservative about Israel but no big fan of Bibi’s. I wonder what all is going on behind the scenes. Personally, I’d love to see the US take a hard-nosed approach to both sides, but I’m not hopeful about seeing that in my lifetime.

Ugh, I was forwarded an email this morning suggesting that the way to deal with the I/P crisis is to withhold food exports to any and all Arab nations who supply arms to Hamas. I guess it’s preferable to starve millions so that asshole settlers from Brooklyn can go steal other people’s land.

I am half-Italian, half-Jewish. My Italian family is aware of their country’s fascist past, I’m not so sure if my Jewish family is aware of Israel’s fascist future (if not present).

@Amir Khalid: Interesting point about Bibi’s ratfucking vis-a-vis US-Muslim relations. I wouldn’t put it past him — and if that’s what’s happening, then I’d wager he’s really, really pIssIng off Obama, and the end result won’t be pretty for him.

Yes, this is all unfortunate, but at least we can take comfort that when this attack is all done, or as long as it goes on, Israeli civilians will be made safer, rockets won’t be fired at them, arms won’t be smuggled into Gaza, and Hamas will be weakened. This was also the result of laying waste to Gaza in 2008, and afterwards Israeli civilians were safe from rockets, and arms stop being smuggled into Gaza, and Hamas was weakened. That did happen, right?

Man that Live Blog is fucking depressing. I’m not sure use of the word “We” is very troubling in this blurb. ISTM that “We” should have some impetus to improve the situation in the short term, to the best of our abilities.

@Ash Can: After Netanyahu’s attempted ratfucking of the U.S. election it would be naive to regard him as a trustworthy ally. I hope there is more going on behind the scenes than we are aware of because our inability to level even mild criticism at Israel makes us look kind of weak.

@Amir Khalid:
I think Obama has made it plain that he only supports actually reasonable Arab/Israeli policies, Bibi has made it plain that he will commit genocide as quickly as he can get away with, and congress has made it plain that America will take no step to stop Israel from doing anything. Obama is a clever man, but there are no direct steps he can take against Israel’s actions in Palestine, and he will never make threats he can’t back up.

My neighborhood spouted a number of ‘Support Israel, Fire Obama’ signs before the election (along with more numerous ‘Obama Biden 2012’ signs). I resisted the temptation–there would have been no point–to say ‘shouldn’t you rather say “Support Israel, fire Netanyahu”‘.

@Violet: Yet on the other hand the main purpose behind the creation of Israel was so that Jews could have a state like everyone else. If everyone else’s state can be vulnerable to the allure of fascism so can the Jewish state.

Yesterday you picked two I-P articles out of the Times coverage to suggest a pro-israel bias while ignoring numerous other articles that presented a critical view of israel and/or the perspective of Gazans.

Today you offer an interpretation of “we” that plainly ignores the context in which obama was speaking.

there’s plenty to discuss and argue about with respect to this conflict, why not engage with the reality instead of just making stuff up?

@c u n d gulag: You push that elected him to office and He pushed the button that dropped the bomb.
You pushed the button so you can watch it on the television
Those motherfuckers didn’t last too long Heh Heh!
–Capital G Nine Inch Nails

@me: I’m not sure that outside a lot of outrage and potentially overthrown middle Eastern governments (this isn’t helping Jordanian stability right now), angry statements, some sanctions, broken trade agreements, that the actual wiping out / driving out of Palestinians from Gaza or even the West Bank would get much of a world response. I’d like to think so, but I’m not sure.

Just got into a FB pissing match with some green friends who feel Warren has disqualified herself from being a good Senator because she is on board with Israel. SIGH – I’m thinking of joining the GOP at least they can see a difference between Scott Brown & Elizabeth Warren.

Obama must use impeccably pro-Israel rhetoric at all times to avoid havIng many, many people in the US flipping their shit.

I think it is more accurate to state that Obama must use impeccably pro-Israel rhetoric at all times to avoid a few prominent and important people in the US flipping their shit, including those within his own party such as the odious Chuck Schumer.

Joe Sixpack doesn’t care much about the Israelis or the Palestinians. Bush One didn’t have much time for Israel and our nation was hardly up in arms against him for that.

@me: Being that “ethnic cleansing” is part of his foreign minister’s party’s platform there should be no doubt about the possible end game here. If the worst does happen, it would be highly dishonest for us to exonerate ourselves with claims of “but we didn’t know.”

@beltane: I get that, but the person who told me that Israel could never be fascist sure didn’t. This person is involved in the Jewish community where I live. We were talking about the situation (this was a few years ago) and I tried to ask whether Israel could ever be seen as a bully or fascist or anything even in that direction. The answer was absolutely not, and DIDN’T I KNOW JEWS SUFFERED THROUGH THE HOLOCAUST. THEY COULD NEVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO ANYONE ELSE.

Sorry for the shouting, but that’s how it was relayed to me. Complete denial of Israel as in any way separate from “people who suffered through the Holocaust.”

Maybe he really does hate Israel – I can’t think of an approach more damaging to the long-term health of Israel that the one he has taken. Bibi must really hate Israel! They are going to wipe themselves off the map.

It’s a politician’s deliberately vague “we” that can be taken to include whoever your particular biases want to include. Which is probably how Obama intended it. The statement is a “gotta make a statement, can’t really say anything” statement.

Which sucks, that he feel he can’t say anything “real”. Anyone have any ideas what steps to take to start making our congress more rational when it comes to Israel?

@Mandalay: Agreed. What Obama doesn’t need right now while he’s on an historic visit to Burma is to have the pro-Israel crowd in the US to start screaming about his lack of support for Israel. It will overshadow anything he accomplishes in Southeast Asia and not help the I-P situation at all.

He was at a press conference in a foreign country. His best move was to be a bland as possible and not rock the boat. We have no idea what’s happening behind the scenes.

Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired onto its territory.

President Obama is correct in pointing out that no country should be expected to tolerate missiles raining down on its cities; but what about the people of Gaza, don’t they have a right to expect the same?

Imperial geopolitics is a hell of a thing – a small country with a population equal to many smaller US States is the flashpoint of global tensions. I wonder why? Oh yeah: Religion. Damn it to the dustbin!

On a far crueler note, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is emblematic of a modern, more civilized word, if you can believe it. For most of human history, the victors wiped out or forcibly removed the vanquished; since WW2 – for good reason! – this is frowned on. So instead we get this occupation, this apartheid.

Reading this sitting safely in my house in America not getting bombed it’s easy to be a cynical, it’s all Israel’s fault reactionary liberal. Talking to family members in Israel that keep heading to bomb shelters and have heard the rockets flying over them and exploding this week I’d say stop the reactionary “It’s all Israel’s fault” bullshit and remember that Hamas is the one who keeps launching rockets knowing exactly this result is what would happen.

It’s easy to sit here and fault Israel but if Canada was dropping rockets in Michigan we’d be all for bombing them back into the stone age. There are no simple solutions here bu reflexively blaming one side or the other isn’t a simple or complex solution, it’s just something comfortable Americans can write about because nobody is bombing us. Remember the US reaction to 4 dead Americans in Benghazi – otherwise rational people wanted disproportionate response in Libya. It’s easy when it’s them and not us.

Looks like this invasion was scheduled until after the US election, no matter who won. And the ‘wrong’ person won, which IMO is the true cause of McCain’s recent tantrums: Romney would have happily bombed Iran (for supporting Hamas) as soon as he got the keys to the White House.

Obama’s threshold for violence is somewhat higher, so McCain probably won’t get his war on Iran. Which means that Obama doesn’t get his first choice for Sec. of State. I have a feeling McCain will pay for this in the long term, however.

Regarding Susan Rice, I think a lot of the BS against her has more to due with her pedigree than her politics. Her history is with the Dukakis campaign and later the Clinton administration, with a focus on African affairs. Not quite the red meat preferred by pundits.

She also isn’t from the East Coast Ivies, she instead ‘only’ went to Stanford. Don’t believe for a minute that it’s coincidence that Yale man Dana Milbank (and the rest of his class) don’t think she’s quite up to the job.

@Mandalay: Bush One didn’t have much time for Israel and our nation was hardly up in arms against him for that.

That’s true, but that was right at the end of the Cold War, so Israel’s survival was a much less interesting topic to Americans than America’s survival. Now that America doesn’t face an existential threat and hasn’t for almost two decades, Americans can afford to have a passionate opinion about other countries. IOW, people have the luxury of going crazy.

You may be right. But if the US was making every effort to destroy Canada, taking Canadian land & claiming as its own, displacing Canadians and refusing them a place at the table, starving Canadian children, denying Canada medicine and many common goods maybe the rest of the world might agree that we were at least partially responsible for the situation.

Further, if Americans were the minority and Canadians growing larger at a faster rate sensible people might actually point this out to the US government and find ways to build a lasting peace

So what is your solution Cole? Just piss and moan about it and point fingers saying, why are you shooting? Go play with your cat and cook something.

It’s a fucked up situation and has been since at least 2005. You are in Virginia somewhere right? What if you had to live with the stress 24/7 that a rocket might be coming your way at any minute from North Carolina. Some days in Gaza they send over 100. On Saturday there were 160 rockets fired into Israel. 500 for all of last week. Think about what it would be like to have 500 rockets lobbed at you from North Carolina. What would you want your state gov’t to do?

On the flip side, Palestinians have it real bad and they resent the Israelis for their situation. I guess you gotta go back to the 60’s or even earlier to try figure that one out.

And the ‘wrong’ person won, which IMO is the true cause of McCain’s recent tantrums: Romney would have happily bombed Iran (for supporting Hamas) as soon as he got the keys to the White House.

Yeah. I think someone here mentioned yesterday that one of the reasons for the invasion was that Bibi didn’t get his war with Iran and is using this as a consolation prize. It’s as good an explanation as any.

“Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired onto its territory. If that can be accomplished without the ramping up of military activity in Gaza – that’s preferable. That’s not just preferable for the people of Gaza. It’s also preferable for Israelis, because if Israeli troops are in Gaza, they’re much more at risk of fatalities or being wounded. We’re going to have to see what kind of progress we can make in the next 24, 36, 48 hours”.

I’m wondering how the people in Pakistan feel about this statement. The tacit example that rockets being launched into sovereign territory is unacceptable.
But I guess it’s different, somehow.

Nobody that died at the WTC ‘deserved it’ but certain reactions can be expected for certain actions. If we keep screwing around in the ME we should expect the people we are screwing with to react. That does not make what they do right or justified, just makes it understandable.

Neither side in Israel/Palestine is clean or particularly covered in glory. Thats not the question. The question is “are the continued strikes and economic strangulation helpful or hurtful?” Followed up by “How do we go forward from here?”

It is just not possible to come up with a snappy analogy to accurately encapsulate the tragedy and complexity of the situation.

That.

As clusterfucked as these threads always are, I will say that the discussion in the comments is getting better….and puts to shame the simplistic knee jerk crap that mistermix and Cole have been phoning in.

If some group of Pakistani supporters decide to strike back at the US it will be called terrorism. It will most likely be against civilians and be rather blunt & brutal because, against the US military, what other choice do they have?

@Schlemizel: I’m not saying that the people in Palestine do deserve the blockades and seizures of their land. And I agree that it’s reasonable to expect significant blowback from those policies.

But to recognize that certain kinds of wrong actions will produce other wrong actions does not mean I cheer people being killed, simply because they happen to be citizens of the more powerful disputant.

It was that attitude to which I was reacting. Just because Israel’s policy is wrong doesn’t make it okay to call for more missiles killing Israelis.

But to recognize that certain kinds of wrong actions will produce other wrong actions does not mean I cheer people being killed, simply because they happen to be citizens of the more powerful disputant.

President Obama is correct in pointing out that no country should be expected to tolerate missiles raining down on its cities; but what about the people of Gaza, don’t they have a right to expect the same?

Take all our funding and weapons away from every middle east national tribe and let them fight it out, just like the Bronze age. The winner gets to be our test ground for an H-bomb. Maybe then a truce will be worked out….quickly.

I awoke today in a country that isn’t threatened legitimately by any outside force. I have first-world problems. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be threatened by shelling. I should be thankful for this, but instead, I am saddened that anyone can’t experience it. Israeli or Palestinian or whatever.

If some group of Pakistani supporters decide to strike back at the US it will be called terrorism. It will most likely be against civilians and be rather blunt & brutal because, against the US military, what other choice do they have?

Actually, if the Iraq War is any indication, they’ll be called terrorists even if do only hit the U.S. military. (Every IED, ambush or suicide attack against American troops was dutifully considered terrorism back home, even though by definition it’s precisely not).

@Chris: Yes, one of the consequences of GWOT has been the defining down of terrorism. By current standards, terrorism is any use of force by a brown person that is contrary to the interests of the US or one of its allies. Rule does not apply if the brown person is Jewish.

Regarding Susan Rice, I think a lot of the BS against her has more to due with her pedigree than her politics

Maybe, but since the only person who is really whining is McCain, I think the whole issue is personal. During the 2008 campaign Susan Rice (diplomatically) told McCain to go stick his head in a bucket of warm shit because he was a warmongering idiot:

Rice shot back on a conference call with reporters that McCain was in fact attacking Obama’s integrity and patriotism with “Karl Rove ‘say anything, do anything’ gutter politics.”

She called McCain’s remarks “the height of hypocrisy” since “McCain has a long track record of supporting a reckless and extreme foreign policy. His tendency is to shoot first and ask questions later.”

@Chris: Good, then let’s just cancel the whole country. While we’re at it, we’re going to cancel every country that was created by fiat by the British at the expense of the native population in the history of ever. Where are you moving to?

@Chris: I think the way it works these days is that any attack on the military of a sovereign state by non-state actors is referred to as terrorism committed by terrorists. Unless we are not on friendly terms with the state in question, in which case the “terrorists” are upgraded to the status of “separatist” or “rebel”. “Militant” is used when the situation is ambiguous. Being that armed conflict between sovereign states has become somewhat rare these days terrorism has become much more common.

@Interrobang:
For all that huffing and puffing, I don’t see you actually disputing that the creation of Israel by British colonial fiat was a great injustice to they Palestinians, and one which might very well destroy them as a nation.

@Amir Khalid: Except Israel wasn’t created by the British, but despite them. And no one was covered in glory by the war it precipitated. It was once common for Israeli Jews to acknowledge this, but not so much anymore.

Nobody in the region, especially not Hamas and their colleagues, can long survive in a 1:1 fight with the IDF. So, they use the techniques of guerrilla warfare to do the damage they can against their stronger foe.

The Gaza strip is highly urbanized. The IDF can reach any part of it easily. Look at what remains of the Yasser Arafat International Airport – http://goo.gl/maps/Y1a8w (Google Map) The Palestinians moving their rockets into open fields won’t make the conflict any more “fair”.

This is nothing new. After all, the American Colonies didn’t fight the Red Coats by assembling rows of men in open fields, either…

The only solution is fair negotiations, something that Israel’s government seems to have no interest in. They only seem interested in short-term advantage while ignoring the demographic bomb that they are building…

Israel has the choice of having two viable states living side by side or an Apartheid “Greater Israel”. They can’t have a Jewish Greater Israel. They have to choose soon – delaying the decision means it will be made for them.

In the context of Afghanistan/Pakistan, our time there is up. We should be leaving soon.

In regards to the Israel/Palestine conflicts, please read the UN reports on Operation Case Lead (aka Gaza War aka Gaza Massacre). Sometimes Israel actually use that as an excuse to fire on noncombatants (or use the same a tactics they’re denouncing which in this case would be using Palestinian children as shields). Not to say Hamas has never used human shields; they’ve have.

Honestly, there is no good solution to that. You can either decide against firing on the person and child and try to resolve the conflict with more peaceful means, or you can decide that the target is too dangerous and sacrifice the life of the child to kill the combatant.

I think the answer to your question, as phrased, depends on the context. Nuisance fire is one thing, a fight to achieve a critical military objective is another.

The people who send soldiers into situations where they have to consider how to answer questions like that need to consider those questions before hand. “Rules of engagement” and all that.

War isn’t “clean” any more, if it ever was. Civilians will continue to die in much greater numbers than armed combatants.

In many cases, these are unwinnable situations for the soldiers on the ground. If they win the battle, they will have created such bad feelings in the process that a greater battle will follow later. If they lose, well, …

So, again, the question sort of answers itself. We know that we can prevail against any enemy in any particular battle if we’re willing to do anything in the process. But we’re not willing to do that. And I think that means that we are no longer willing to go to Total War the way we were in the 1940s.

That final realization hasn’t, I don’t think, trickled into the strategic thinking of our policy makers to the extent it should. I think Obama gets it, but McCain obviously doesn’t.

I understand why those who don’t have heavy weaponry turn to guerrilla tactics. But there is no requirement that you keep your children in the room with you as you fight a guerrilla action. We fought the Redcoats from behind trees and rocks, not from our schoolhouses.

It’s a question that I think we, on the left, need to address. How should we react when a (put name of group here) leader knows that they are almost certainly the target of a missile yet stays in close proximity to their children?

—

I agree that the only solution is a negotiated settlement. I don’t see signs that either side is willing to negotiate a settlement unless it means that they get almost everything they want. I’m in the “a pox on both of their houses” camp.

I suspect the choice that Palestine has right now is whether they settle for a separate nation smaller than what they would like or wait longer for an even smaller nation. The Palestinians do not, as you acknowledge, have the ability to defeat the Israelis in a full on battle and not other nation in the region seems to be willing to assist them militarily.

The wall/fence means that they are not going to be successful in sending in suicide bombers or plant IEDs. They are also not successful burrowing under. The “iron dome” is cutting off their ability to use rockets. The Palestinians seem to be loosing what little ability they had to harm Israel.

As time goes on it seems to me that the balance of power continues to shift away from Palestine. Seems to me that there must be a point at which you admit that you’ve lost, settle up, and get on with your life.

That should not be taken as an indication that I side with Israel. I side with the people whose lives are crappy because all of this is not settled.

I know there is another John Cole on the Intertubes – goes under the name “Juan” and is a professor of ME History. A Great read, particularly on ME issues. But I assume the John Cole you mention is some other person since neither of the 2 I read post anything I would characterize like that.

It’s a question that I think we, on the left, need to address. How should we react when a (put name of group here) leader knows that they are almost certainly the target of a missile yet stays in close proximity to their children?

What the fuck are you babbling about? This is beyond nonsense.
And I think you may need to brush up a bit on your American History. They worked their farms, managed their shops and led their communities.

I agree that the only solution is a negotiated settlement. I don’t see signs that either side is willing to negotiate a settlement unless it means that they get almost everything they want. I’m in the “a pox on both of their houses” camp.

I am not trying to get angry at this post, but goddamn it, this just kind of pisses me off.

Lets ignore how unfair it is to compare both sides as if they were equal and instead address the “either side is willing to negotiate a settlement unless it means that they get almost everything they want”. Almost every time the Palestinians went to the Israel government in this past decade, they went there prepared to give up what rightfully belonged to them (as in Israel is currently violating International Law by occupying this land). They’ve held onto only two requests: Israel freeze these illegal settlement expansions and Israel goes back to the ’67 borders. Neither of these things are unreasonable.

Hell, even Barack Obama acknowledged these are needed for peace between the two.

I won’t try any moral arguments because I’m tired of them, but what do you expect Palestine to do?

If the people fighting are of the community, rather than outsiders who appear and use the populace as shields without their consent, then (at the moment; subject to revision) I think that they can’t be faulted for fighting the best way they see fit. They’re doing their best with their own resources to determine their own fate. You and I might not make their choice, but I (personally) can’t fault them for taking the product of their experiences and knowledge to make their own choices in a military conflict.

Sometimes the only way for your side to “win” is to put yourself personally in an unwinnable situation.

They’ve held onto only two requests: Israel freeze these illegal settlement expansions and Israel goes back to the ‘67 borders. Neither of these things are unreasonable.

Reasonable? Could be.

Achievable? That’s the real question. Fact is, one side has the ability to defeat the other. The side without that ability may have to settle for something unreasonable, by their standards. That’s what happens to the loser. The outcome of wars is rarely “fair”.

—

What do I expect Palestine to do? Most likely to keep on fighting while they watch their territory continue to shrink.

—

Do I think any of this “fair”? No, I’m not trying to look at it from a moral position, but a realistic position.

The Israelis are not going to go with a one nation solution in which the Muslim-Israelis can ‘out breed’ the Jewish-Israelis.

The Israelis are not likely to go back to the ’67 boarders at this point. They might/probably would give up some of their “illegal settlements”, but not all.

The Israelis are not going to go with a one nation solution in which the Muslim-Israelis can ‘out breed’ the Jewish-Israelis.

Which explains why they haven’t annexed the West Bank all at once – be a little awkward to still have all these Arabs left. Better let settler terrorists slowly annex stuff while driving the previous owners out/make conditions so unlivable that the Palestinians will leave.

If the people fighting are of the community, rather than outsiders who appear and use the populace as shields without their consent, then (at the moment; subject to revision) I think that they can’t be faulted for fighting the best way they see fit.

How much leeway do you give them to determine “the best way”?

Does that include “keep my children by my side as I fight because if they get killed it will help my cause”?

And, if you think that a reasonable tactical decision, should the people on the other side either a) surrender or b) beat themselves up over the “misused” children?

If we are looking at things realistically, the Palestinians will starve to death; they will all die. The current forces in Israel has shown no desire to negotiate in good faith nor desire for peace. Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, are feeling less inclined to bend over backwards for a deal, and their attitude towards peaceful negotiation will slowly but surely disappear.

Right now, Israel does not give a fuck, and soon, neither will Palestine. Israel will continue to beat down on Palestine, and Palestine will fight back but have already lost. Nothing save strong intervention will stop this, but if history taught me anything, it is that it repeats. Palestinians will become 21st Native Americans; they die down into relative obscurity.

The only real glimmer of hope is the death of Netanyahu and the fall of Israel’s right wing. A more empathic person as head of state. From what I heard, the left wing has lost a great deal of power and it will be awhile before they gain prominence again.

It’s funny. Israel is probably what America could look like in the future.

If we are looking at things realistically, the Palestinians will starve to death; they will all die.

You want to try to sell that as reality?

The only real glimmer of hope is the death of Netanyahu and the fall of Israel’s right wing. A more empathic person as head of state. From what I heard, the left wing has lost a great deal of power and it will be awhile before they gain prominence again.

The only real glimmer of hope, IMO, is for both sides to put forth less strident leaders. But as long as Palestine continues to attack Israel (rightly or wrongly) we should not expect Israel to elect a “peacenik” government.

I have no idea who is right or wrong, I can’t sort this mess out in my head. What I think is that it is time to just stop. The longer the Palestinians fight the more they loose. There’s a point at which you realize that you can’t win and walk away with at least bus fare home.

Stop now, accept that you’re going to have a very small crowded country, and start making something out of what you’ve got.

It’s funny. Israel is probably whatwill probably end up looking like America could look like in the future.does right now.

FTFY.

IMO, the game will end with the entire West Bank in Israeli hands, de jure as well as de facto, permanently, with the Palestinians, to the extent that there are any left, rounded up and invisible in the local equivalent of America’s Indian reservations. (Heck, it’s basically happening right now).

Decades after the issue’s been settled, once all the original colonists have died and the conflict’s remembered only in history books, maybe you’ll finally have a civil rights movement with a bunch of young Israelis going “oh, my God, it’s awful how mean and nasty our ancestors were.” But I’ve pretty much given hope on a Palestinian state ever existing. (Maybe one city-state in Gaza, maybe not).

@JustAnotherBob: My point is, I can’t answer for them any more than I can force them to make what I think is the better choice.

War is messy. It’s not a chess game. There are always unintended consequences.

The people doing the fighting and dying are products of their societies and their circumstances. “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Trying to reason this out from afar in a detached, objective way isn’t going to get you the “right” answer.

Of course people “shouldn’t” put their children at risk when they’re fighting.

How does giving that answer cause a change in the circumstances on the ground? How does it point a way forward or help understanding? How does it answer the question of what should be done by whom?

You can’t know the thinking that went into the decision to fire rockets from some particular plot of land. You weren’t there.

Your line of inquiry leads to blaming the victim.

You admit that Hamas can’t win against the IDF. They know that as well, of course. It’s an even more lopsided battle than the Colonies against Great Britain. Think a little more about why Hamas and their colleagues are willing to continue an unwinnable fight. Perhaps the military battle isn’t the real battle.

And think a little more about what happens to Israel and her people if they eventually “win”. Israel’s government should be telling themselves “be careful what you wish for – you may well get it.”

@JustAnotherBob: This is relentlessly foolish. We’re talking about an area smaller than the city of Detroit but 1.5X as dense as the city of Los Angeles. Where do you think these “militants” are supposed to go? Herd themselves into a corner and call it District 9? And do you think Israel sends a cordial letter acknowledging their targeted status? All military aged males in one section and all women and children in another? Israel doesn’t give a shit!
Ridiculous.

You can’t know the thinking that went into the decision to fire rockets from some particular plot of land. You weren’t there.

LOL, I see the denizens of planet libalphacentauri are still fighting through the fog of blog war. How bout this, the Occam’s Razor choice. Hamas fired the rockets, BECAUSE THEY HAD THEM. It is a war, and it is not as lopsided as it appears. As far as the political end game in this one.

I think there is some paradoxical navel gazing to be had though, through all this wizardry and serious emoting/that we most likely have atheist leftists siding with Muslim fundamentalists against a secular Jewish state. Not to mention American right wing religionists pining for Israel with the plutocrats and neo cons on board the USA clown car. Though the Jews can go to hell, and will, but baby jeebus will be around soon. You cannot make this shit up. A blood soaked comedy of errors.

Obama is right. Israel is blithely stepping through the looking glass and will pay a steep price in the end, as an existential matter, in the longer run.

@JustAnotherBob:
Okay, that bit about them all dying was an hyperbole.

The main point was as Chris post mentioned: If we are looking at things from a realistic point of view, the Palestinians, as a people, will die out. If they are lucky, they’ll end up with a city-state, but most likely, their culture will die as will most of their population.

Anyway, I think is a bit naive to think that anything Palestine does actually matters. Israel has no real motivation for releasing the Palestinians’ land and has much to lose. Even if all Palestinians were saints, they’d still get minimal support from their so called allies. The only thing they could do is sneak their way past in the Egyptian border or die.

Israel really does not care if they are violent or not. The attacks will not stop. The blockade will not end. This isn’t even about ideology. Economic reasons. Israel wants that land. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding in this whole issue. It is not about safety or security. For the most part, Israel has less trouble with their then most countries in the region (and much less than ours with Mexico).

The Likud and other far right parties does not recognize Palestine’s right to exist. Nothing the Palestinians can do will ever change that. Imagine if the Tea Partiers were elected and fully controlled the Federal Government, and you’ll begin to get the picture. You see, even when the Palestinians are being compliant, Netanyahu and his buddies will manufacture a reason.

To give you a sense of what kind of crazy is in control look at this piece.

Israel has the power in this relationship. The only way this will end without the destruction of Palestinians is if International intervention or the right wing of Israel lose power and the left wing rise again.

I think there is some paradoxical navel gazing to be had though, through all this wizardry and serious emoting/that we most likely have atheist leftists siding with Muslim fundamentalists against a secular Jewish state.

A secular Jewish state which has currently formed an apartheid, violating International laws (settlements and the blockade for one), is continuously committing war crimes (like purposely firing on unarmed noncombatants), and (international and the Holocaust survivor who coined the damn word definitions) genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

But holy shit, when did you become such a bigot? Why are trying to frame this as Muslims versus Jews?

Anyway, I think is a bit naive to think that anything Palestine does actually matters. Israel has no real motivation for releasing the Palestinians’ land and has much to lose. Even if all Palestinians were saints, they’d still get minimal support from their so called allies.

Here is what I think will happen if ALL the Palestinians agreed to stop killing Jews and to accept Israel’s existence. And demonstrate their sincerity over a period of time. When the overwhelming number of Israeli secular and liberal minded Jewish citizens believe it is real, then the wheels of democracy kick in, unless you are going to claim it is a fake democracy. I do hope you don’t do this. But any how, the effect would be different Israeli leaders of the left warily begin to come off the bench and deal in good faith with Palestinian leaders that are dealing in good faith. And over some time, millions of Americans, like me, will soften our view of Hamas ruling the Pal. roost and expect and demand more dovish behavior from our elected leaders toward the Palestinians. Not all will, but a solid majority of voters would began to change the pair-a-dime, so some semblance of heeling and moderation can begin. Better Behavior all around empowers the hand of democracy to heal the angst of a long war. But not overnight

“Here is what I think will happen if ALL the negros agreed to stop killing whites and to accept white’s supremacy. And demonstrate their sincerity over a period of time. When the overwhelming number of American secular and liberal minded whites citizens believe it is real, then the wheels of democracy kick in, unless you are going to claim it is a fake democracy. I do hope you don’t do this. But any how, the effect would be different American leaders of the left warily begin to come off the bench and deal in good faith with Black Panthers leaders that are dealing in good faith. And over some time, millions of Europeans, like me, will soften our view of the Black Panthers ruling the negro roost and expect and demand more dovish behavior from our elected leaders toward the negros. Not all will, but a solid majority of voters would began to change the pair-a-dime, so some semblance of heeling and moderation can begin. Better Behavior all around empowers the hand of democracy to heal the angst of a long war. But not overnight.”

But holy shit, when did you become such a bigot? Why are trying to frame this as Muslims versus Jews?

The above is a good example of the layers of lies you bring to this conversation.
You are a complete clown that has dumped buckets of fetid bullshit on the dialogue of the blog on this issue. You lecture and claim to have the facts and a superior viewpoint as a true liberal, when you leave out the facts you don’t like. And talk down to anyone who states the nature of your lies. You talk about peace, then go on to say why should the Palestinians stop fighting. And so on.

Are you really some loser, trying some desperate means to redeem yourself by taking sides in a civil war on the other side of the globe? Is your self esteem that fucking low? It would be better, most likely, if you attended some therapy sessions instead of barking and posturing with half bake info gleaned from foggy bottoms of the internets. And now, since I called you on your bigotry in another thread, you are being a good little left wingnut and calling me the bigot as a defense. Wonder where you got that idea.

All of this false analogy is only further evidence it is racism that drives you, or in this case, sectarian bigotry via the anti-semite. By transforming the war over land into a racist matter that suits your mindset of not much caring for Jews to begin with.

Do you not see the difference between your reasoning for beating down the Palestinians and America’s reason for beating down people of color? You’re even using “if all of them” bullshit.

You’re also ignoring Operation Cast Lead (fuck, I’ve been calling it Case Lead this entire time). That was back in 2008. Hamas settled a deal with Israel. Hamas fulfilled its end of the bargain. Israel reacted by reneging on the deal and launching an offensive. During this attack, they purposely attacked civilians, including children and hospitals. They used White Phosphorous on noncombatants (a war crime specifically mentioned in the Geneva Convention, for chrissake!). Israel even went as far as using Palestinian children as human shields. Hamas fulfilled their end of the bargain and was rewarded with pain and death.

IMHO they are knuckleheads who have let their anger conquer their rational thought processes. (And the other side has their share as well. I’ll repeat, I’m on neither’s “side”.)

Believe it or not, people don’t usually go from angry rhetoric to deadly actions without cause. The arguments you’re presenting here are overly simplistic, IMHO.

Remember the Branch Davidians at Waco? How about the story of Masada? Children died there, too. “Knuckleheads” who feel strongly about their way of life don’t change their minds when confronted with overwhelming odds. They have to be dealt with as adults, not as if they’re stupid.

This isn’t a battle between two cliques in high school. People’s lives are at literally stake.

It’s not simply a matter of the Gazans saying, “Oh well, we lost the war in 1967, we should suck it up and move on with our lives.” Their economy is strangled by the IDF (unemployment is over 45%). They have little to no control over their lives. E.g. http://www.gisha.org/item.asp?.....;p_id=1441

It’s very hard to have a final status agreement when Israel’s government doesn’t want one and instead wants to impose facts on the ground.

Given all of this, your looking at this conflict as a battle between two sides that may be equally at fault, or saying “a pox on both their houses” is a cop-out.

Israel has the military, economic, and political might. They have imposed policies on the Palestinians that amount to collective punishment. Israel’s government has the responsibility to do more to create the environment for a settlement. That they do not do so shows that they have and deserve more of the blame.

All of this false analogy is only further evidence it is racism that drives you, or in this case, sectarian bigotry via the anti-semite. By transforming the war over land into a racist matter that suits your mindset of not much caring for Jews to begin with.

1) You do realize that the Palestinians are also Semites, right?

2) The only time I have even mentioned Judaism as an ethnicity or religion was when I told you that the Palestinians do not want to kill all the Jews.

3) You are the one who continuously bring up their ethnicity and religion. I only referred to the Israelis and Palestinians by their nationalities.
3a) I do this because I do not believe their ethnicity or religion actually matter in this debate. Well, not to the extent most people do.

4) How does me comparing the treatment of people of color in America to the treatment of Palestinians near Israel reveal that I have bigoted feelings?
4.5)Even if I was “transforming the war over land into a racist matter”, how does that not fit in with the rhetoric on both sides.

You have got to be trolling me. The logic to your argument is so fucking stupid it is literally giving me a headache.

I an not ignoring anything and have never okayed the extreme nature of Israel’s lethal response on the Gaza Strip/ Nor any of the other times they have over reacted. But this is not a parlor game and war lends no expected guarantee for one side or the other to act in measured response to being attacked. If you send rockets into your neighbors neighborhood, there is no law of war that says the other side has to act proportional in self defense. Hamas knows what it is doing, and the death that comes from their actions of their people is part and parcel to their battle plan over time, with an insurgent model. And War Crimes? Please. I used to look at the matter much like you do, but that changed in the wake of Hamas and IJ, and others carnage in Israel a decade ago from daily suicide bombings, that was only stymied by the wall. War Crimes are speeding tickets in the Indy 500 for that place. And most other places of war as well.

Absolutely. So why have you been blathering about apartheid and racism as the main factor of Israeli behavior?

3) You are the one who continuously bring up their ethnicity and religion

Yesterday was the first comment I made and I brought up religion and bigotry from reading multiple threads on the topic. So like I said before. It sounds like you are saying that I am the real racist for talking about racism.

The logic to your argument is so fucking stupid it is literally giving me a headache.

Really?

4) How does me comparing the treatment of people of color in America to the treatment of Palestinians near Israel reveal that I have bigoted feelings?

SO I am the one bringing up racism and bigotry into the mix? Are you on drugs, or otherwise ill?

But keep blabbering. I am not a hall monitor and you have a right to spew random bullshit at will here. Almost everything you say is steeped in free associative mumbo jumbo mendacity.

Believe it or not, people don’t usually go from angry rhetoric to deadly actions without cause. The arguments you’re presenting here are overly simplistic, IMHO.

Well, of course they don’t. Or at least rarely do in large numbers.

It doesn’t matter if Israel should have never been created. There’s no indication the world is going to reverse that decision.

In 1967 a bunch of non-Israelis tried to destroy Israel and got their butts kicked. They lost.

Since then some people have continued to attempt to destroy Israel and/or capture a lot of the land that was at one point Israel. They’ve lost.

Continuing to attack Israel, especially seeing how the rest of the Muslim world wants no part of that battle, is going to do nothing but get people killed and keep the Palestine people living in terrible conditions. I see no rational choice for them except to sue for peace and get on with their lives.

The Palestinians screwed up. They could have had a 1967 boarder country but they fought for more and they did not have the ability to win that war.

I can’t believe anyone can defend the actions of the Zionist Occupation Army, and get on their sanctimonious high-horse doing it.

The bit about the Palestinians keeping their children in the same country with them to make the Israelis look bad when they murder them is particularly rich—the Zionists are the ones who brought their women and children with them when they occupied Palestine. Even the Germans in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Poland, etc. didn’t have the gall to do that.

And Israel has the “right” to “defend” themselves? Fucking bullshit! Did the Germans in all of those occupied countries have the “right” to “defend” themselves? No doubt the respective Resistance movements in all those countries would have allowed them to go back where they came from without hunting them down and killing them there, but that would have been an unearned privilege, not a “right”. They certainly had no “right” to “defend” themselves while they were in an occupying army, any more than the occupying army in Palestine has any “right” to “defend” themselves. The notion is obscene.

Please read the Operation Cast Lead article. It mentions how Israel broke its agreement with Hamas to launch an attack despite Hamas actually complying with the terms of the agreement.

What was the agreement? Hamas will stop the rocket attacks (they were able to reduce it by 99.94% which is extremely impressive when you consider how fucking splintered the Gaza Strip is and how small Hamas is) and Israel would loosen the blockade, allowing food and construction material to pass through.

For six whole months, Hamas was actually putting in a good faith effort to fulfill their end of the bargain. At not point in this time did Israel loosen their blockade; moreover, instead of living up to their end of the agreement, Israel decided massacring them was a better reward.

What they did those months during that operation wasn’t just some breach of protocol. They deliberately targeted civilians and noncombatants. They used children as human shields, sometimes literally tying them up. They rained White Phosphorous down on innocent people.

Afterwards, they lied about the whole matter. They demonized the people they killed. Hamas may be bad, but the IDF is fucking evil.

Fuck you, Stuck. You’re just another racist ass white dude. Don’t even know why you pretend to be a liberal. Everyone can see you’re a wingnut. No person should be so bereft of empathy.

I have literally shown you that Israel was the aggressor in the Gaza War, doing things that we would hang Barack Obama for.

You think that anyone else here will actually susceptible to your “Palestinians are Subhuman monsters” bullshit? Fuck you for even being alive.

You act like you give a shit about the Israelis. You just want them to kill some Muslims. Admit it. Admit it to yourself, and admit it to me.

Israel is maintaining an apartheid. That is a fact. I mentioned it a couple times in passing, but they are far from the things I am angry about. I have not mentioned the discrimination in full effect yet.

@JustAnotherBob:
You are assuming that anything the Palestinians can do actually will change the outcome. Do you remember the last time the Palestinians had a deal with Israel? You should because I keep fucking mentioning it. A deal will only work if both sides want it. Israel does not want a deal; allowing the Palestinians land would mean getting into a fight with their settlers. Israel has repeatedly shown that they prefer their crazy ass settlers to even the most saintly Palestinians.

Fuck you, Stuck. You’re just another racist ass white dude. Don’t even know why you pretend to be a liberal. Everyone can see you’re a wingnut. No person should be so bereft of empathy.I have literally shown you that Israel was the aggressor in the Gaza War, doing things that we would hang Barack Obama for.

You think that anyone else here will actually susceptible to your “Palestinians are Subhuman monsters” bullshit? Fuck you for even being alive.

You act like you give a shit about the Israelis. You just want them to kill some Muslims. Admit it. Admit it to yourself, and admit it to me.

And now comes the meltdown, with confirmation of every thing I have alleged on this thread. Sad

@me: No, I do not believe that might makes right. But sometimes might determines reality.

@Some Loser: OK, if you believe that there is nothing that Palestine can do, that Israel is going to take over 100% of the land, then the smart thing would be to simply give up and work toward moving somewhere else. Why keep fighting a loosing cause?

I don’t agree with you.

And I think that your “genocide and murdering civilians” is a bunch of crap. You’ve got a dog in this fight.

I see this as a back and forth between two groups of people who are acting unreasonably. A few on each side are probably so angry that they would uphold the destruction of everyone on the other side, but I don’t believe that either side is fully behind genocide.

Problem for one group is that they have lost. They need to quit fighting. It is getting them nowhere. Appeal to the other countries of the world to broker the best possible deal for them. The longer they continue to fight, the less territory they control.

Most extreme case, the Palestinians get pushed all the way out of Israel/Palestine. Israel secures its boarders. Its citizens are secure.

Less extreme case, the Palestinians form a country with whatever land they get in a settlement, Israel secures its boarders. Its citizens are secure.

Have some on the left demonized the Israelis to the extent that they can no longer be objective? Are you actually arguing that Israeli action on the part of the Israeli government is designed to harm its own people?

Are you suggesting that when a government conducts a policy and explains that that policy is being conducted for the benefit of the population that we accept that this is true?

We do not do this for our own nation.

When the U.S. government conducted a policy of invading and occupying Iraq under the argument that it was doing so in order to make U.S. citizens safe, that was not in fact the goals of the policymakers, and that was not in fact the result.

In fact, it was the opposite — the U.S. citizenry was worse off, and in greater risk, as a result of U.S. policy actions in Iraq, and there never was presented any strong evidence that the policymakers generating that policy had as a primary concern the interests of the U.S. populace.

If you wish to argue that it is “objective” to demand it be assumed that Israeli policymakers are in fact acting on behalf of the genuine interests of the Israeli population, and further that they have been effective in doing so, go ahead.

So, yes, I as well as many people both in and outside Israel fail to see evidence that Israeli policymakers directing their policies toward occupation and expansion as being motivated for the safety and security of Israeli civilians, and likewise, these policies have spectacularly failed in securing the safety of Israeli civilians.

This is the sort of primary analysis that you would do with any state actor, but there many people who are convinced that there is a moral fundament that they abandon the sort of reasoning they would apply to Ghana or Bolivia when it comes to Israel.

Are you suggesting that when a government conducts a policy and explains that that policy is being conducted for the benefit of the population that we accept that this is true?

No.

We do not do this for our own nation.

The Bush administration could well have thought that their actions were in the best interest of the US. I suspect that most inside the administration thought so.

That does not mean that they were correct, nor does it mean that there were not additional motivations.

If you wish to argue that it is “objective” to demand it be assumed that Israeli policymakers are in fact acting on behalf of the genuine interests of the Israeli population, and further that they have been effective in doing so, go ahead.

If you can tell me what motivation the leaders of Israel might have other than protecting its citizens I’ll listen. I do understand that some in the country want Israel to take in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, so you can skip that part.

I am able to look at the facts at hand and see that there are few to no problems inside the Israeli boarders caused by Palestinians. There are, for example, no squads of armed fighters roaming around shooting people. And now with the iron dome it looks like the missiles have been largely neutralized.

The Israeli government seems to have been effective in holding hostile forces at arms length with minimum damage. I’m having a bit of a problem seeing how they have spectacularly failed in securing the safety of Israeli civilians.

If you can tell me what motivation the leaders of Israel might have other than protecting its citizens I’ll listen. I do understand that some in the country want Israel to take in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, so you can skip that part.

I’m not concerned with getting you to listen to me. That’s not a motivation. I don’t care. Listen to whomever you like.

However, I find this confluence of these two sentences interesting.

Comments are closed.

Get Involved!

It takes just 5 minutes, twice a week:

Make a call
Send an email
Send a postcard or fax
Make your voice heard!

For both local and national numbers, recommended scripts and approaches: